Manipulative Limitations and Social Security Disability

Social Security Ruling 96-9p examines the effect of various functional limitations on a Social Security disability claimant’s ability to perform the full range of sedentary work. Although SSR 85-15 generally discusses the effect of manipulative limitations on a claimant’s ability to work, SSR 96-9p is the first ruling to provide that any significant manipulative limitation necessarily results in the “significant erosion of the unskilled sedentary occupational base.” Based on this ruling, the ALJ has the authority to find a claimant disabled under such circumstances. Additionally, the ALJ arguably must obtain vocational expert testimony to establish that a claimant (who is otherwise limited to sedentary work and suffers from significant manipulative limitations) can perform other work.

Tip

If you suffer from medically documented manipulative limitations and are limited to unskilled sedentary work, your attorney should argue that the unskilled sedentary work base has been significantly eroded and that a finding of disabled is required. Alternatively, your attorney should argue that in light of your manipulative limitations, vocational expert testimony is needed to establish the existence of other work that you can perform.

Regulations

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945

The regulations provide that a limited ability to perform certain physical demands of work activity, including manipulative functions such as reaching and handling, may reduce a claimant’s ability to do past work and other work.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569a, 416.969a

Some examples of nonexertional limitations or restrictions include difficulty performing the manipulative or postural functions of some work such as reaching, handling, stooping, climbing, crawling, or crouching.

Rulings

Social Security Ruling 96-9p

SSR 96-9p provides that most unskilled sedentary jobs require good use of both hands and the fingers; i.e., bilateral manual dexterity. Fine movements of small objects require use of the fingers, e.g., to pick or pinch. Id. “Most unskilled sedentary jobs require good use of the hands and fingers for repetitive hand-finger actions.” Id.

SSR 96-9p further provides that:

Any significant manipulative limitation of an individual’s ability to handle and work with small objects with both hands will result in a significant erosion of the unskilled sedentary occupational base.

Social Security Ruling 85-15

SSR 85-15 provides that reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling require progressively finer usage of the upper extremities to perform work-related activities. Reaching (extending the hands and arms in any direction) and handling (seizing, holding, grasping, turning or otherwise working primarily with the whole hand or hands) are activities required in almost all jobs. Significant limitations of reaching or handling may eliminate a large number of occupations a person could otherwise do. Varying degrees of limitations would have different effects, and a VE’s assistance might be needed to determine the effects of the limitations.

Fingering involves picking, pinching, or otherwise working primarily with the fingers. It is needed to perform most unskilled sedentary jobs and to perform certain skilled and semiskilled jobs at all levels of exertion. As a general rule, limitations of fine manual dexterity have greater adjudicative significance — in terms of relative numbers of jobs in which the function is required — as the person’s exertional RFC decreases. Thus, the loss of fine manual dexterity narrows the sedentary and light ranges of work much more than it does the medium, heavy, and very heavy ranges of work. The varying degrees of loss which can occur may require the adjudicator to have a VE’s assistance. However, a VE would not ordinarily be required where a person has lost the ability to feel the size, shape, temperature, or texture of an object by the fingertips, since this is a function required in very few jobs.

Social Security Ruling 83-14

SSR 83-14 describes Example 1 of § 201.00(h) of the Grids as illustrating that a limitation to unskilled sedentary work, with an additional loss of bilateral manual dexterity that is significant, warrants a conclusion of “disabled.” SSR 83-14 further notes that the bulk of unskilled sedentary jobs requires bilateral manual dexterity.

Case Law

First Circuit

In Heggarty v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 990 (1st Cir. 1991), the court found that where uncontradicted medical evidence indicated that the claimant’s manual dexterity was limited, the ALJ’s conclusion that the claimant retained the capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work was not supported by substantial evidence and a remand for vocational evidence was required. Id. at 996-97.

In Prentice, the Commissioner moved for a remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), conceding that the claimant suffered from a nonexertional impairment (a manual-dexterity problem) which was significant enough to have undermined the administrative law judge’s sole reliance on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, and contending that the appropriate remedy was remand for rehearing to obtain vocational expert testimony. Prentice v. Barnhart, 256 F. Supp.2d 4, 5-6 (D. Me. 2003). The claimant opposed the remand, and instead argued that his entitlement to benefits was clear enough to warrant remand with instructions to pay benefits. Id. at 6. In support, the claimant cited Social Security Ruling 96-9p for the proposition that a person “who is limited to unskilled sedentary work and lacks any manual dexterity of his non-dominant hand is ipso facto disabled.” Id.The court disagreed, citing three reasons: (1) nowhere in SSR 96-9p does it clearly direct that a claimant be found “disabled”; (2) circuit courts have rejected arguments similar to that made by the claimant’s and (3) the Commissioner clarified, in deleting example 1 of section 201.00(h) from the Grids effective September 27, 2001, that the agency has always intended that the example not be construed to direct a finding of disability. Id. at 7. As SSR 96-9p does not clearly direct a finding of disabled, remand with instructions for rehearing as requested by the Commissioner, rather than remand with instructions to pay benefits, was the appropriate remedy. Id. at 8.

Noting that § 201.00 of the Grids did not mandate a finding of disability, the court stated that although the claimant was limited in his ability to engage in fine manipulation, he did not lack bilateral manual dexterity, both gross and fine, as did the claimant in § 201.00. Therefore, the Grids did not direct a finding of disability under the circumstances presented. Preston v. Sullivan, 785 F. Supp. 1267, 1272 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

Seventh Circuit

While most unskilled sedentary jobs require good use of the hands and fingers for repetitive hand-finger actions, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the claimant could perform sedentary jobs. Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 309 (7th Cir. 1995).

Although the claimant could not perform such manipulations as changing a spark plug, but admitted that he had the ability to perform fine manipulations such as picking up a rubber band, the ALJ properly concluded that the claimant’s capability to perform the full range of sedentary work was not significantly impacted by his hand restrictions. Luna v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 1994).

In evaluating a claimant’s right to seek Equal Access to Justice Act attorneys’ fees, the court held that the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified when it exclusively relied on the Grids even though the claimant was precluded from using her nondominant hand for repetitive motions.Cummings v. Sullivan, 950 F.2d 492, 498 (7th Cir. 1991).

Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings that the claimant could do the full range of sedentary work where the medical records contained no evidence that the claimant sought or received medical treatment for numbness in his hands. Ownbey v. Shalala, 5 F.3d 342, 344 (8th Cir. 1993).

Since a physician stated that the claimant would be limited in his ability to handle objects and that his slight hearing loss would affect his ability to hear low voices, and both of these conditions could limit the unskilled, sedentary jobs which the claimant could perform, VE testimony would be required upon remand. Sanders v. Sullivan, 983 F.2d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 1992).

Ninth Circuit

Where the ALJ specifically found that the claimant could not perform the full range of sedentary and light work because of significant mental and manipulative nonexertional limitations, the ALJ was required to obtain VE testimony. Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1341 (9th Cir. 1988).

Where the claimant had a permanent injury to one hand which precluded jobs requiring bilateral manual dexterity and thus significantly compromised the only range of work for which he was otherwise qualified, the ALJ erred in failing to obtain testimony from a VE as to other jobs the claimant could perform. Fife v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1985).

Tenth Circuit

The ALJ erred in finding that the claimant was not disabled under the Grids where the ALJ admitted that the claimant had reaching limitations and was limited to sedentary work. Saiz v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 2004).

Where the record did not support a finding that the claimant’s hands were fully functional, the ALJ’s failure to include any hand limitations in his hypothetical to the VE violated the established rule that such inquiries must include all impairments borne out by the evidentiary record. Evans v. Chater, 55 F.3d 530, 532 (10th Cir. 1995).

The Tenth Circuit noted that a claimant may possess nonexertional limitations in his manual dexterity which limit his ability to perform tasks with his fingers and fingertips, thereby reducing the claimant’s potential occupational base as set forth in the Grids. Trimiar v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1326, 1333 (10th Cir. 1992).

In Piatt v. Barnhart, 225 F. Supp.2d 1278 (D. Kan. 2002), the court held that the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that there were no manipulative limitations. Id. at 1285.

Eleventh Circuit

The Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its holding that limitations in manual dexterity and grip strength in one hand would significantly limit a person’s ability to adapt to other work, and should therefore preclude exclusive reliance on the Grids. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995).

The Eleventh Circuit found that the claimant, who required an assistive device to ambulate, suffered from a manipulative limitation. Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 1003 (11th Cir. 1987). The ALJ erred in failing to make a specific finding as to whether the nonexertional impairment was severe enough to preclude the claimant from performing a wide range of sedentary work. Id.

Free Initial Consultation

List the medical conditions that affect your ability to work:

1.

2.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

13 Sugerencias para Demandantes Discapacidad

Testimonials

Dan C.

Mr. Palma and his office did an excellent job with my disability case. They are very professional and would highly recommend them.

~Dan C.

Strickland S.

Everyone in the office is helpful and professional. Attorney Palma always made me feel comfortable and kept me updated. He made the entire process easy and stress free. I would highly recommend him.

~Strickland S.

Ruth F.

I was very pleased with the Palma Law Offices. They were professional & cared about my case. I am thrilled that Palma Law Office represented me.

~Ruth F.

Nathan L.

Mr. Palma and Pam always answered any questions I had. They made sure they always got back to me. They even helped me after they got paid to make sure that I received my settlement. Thanks for all your help!

~Nathan L.

Stephen P.

I will recommend your firm to everyone I know. Thank you!

~Stephen P.

Maria C.

From the moment we spoke on the phone with law office to the decision letter received, this experience as been nothing but pleasant and complete. All the right questions asked and the empathy for how and what I was going through. I wouldn't have chosen a better law firm to help me in my disability claim. Thank you for making me worry less about completing all necessary items.

~Maria C.

Steven N.

Knowledgable, Competent, Responsive, Great Job

~Steven N.

Deborah P

Mr. Palma was an excellent representative on my Social Security Disabilty benefits case. He has a clear understanding of the legal process and his experience, in this matter, gives him a good idea of potential outcomes. I had a very long case and throughout, Mr. Palma was patient and supportive. Eventually, I was fiven a favorable decision. I would recommend Mr. Palma to anyone needing legal representation in making a claim for social security disability benefits.

~Deborah P

Melissa S.

Excellent service, very helpful, and always there to answer any questions. Experienced staff that shows they care.

~Melissa S.

Michelle A

I have had to deal with lawyers in the past. Never had an acceptable experience until I found Palma Law Office, P.C. Gerard is a professional through and through, always able to be reached. I dealt a lot with Judy who was also extremely professional, and we seemed to click right away. She was always 3 steps ahead of anything that needed to be done, did it all, and explained it all to me in layman’s terms. I really can’t thank them enough for making this as easy on me as possible. Thank you with all my heart.

~Michelle A

Terry K.

We were extremely satisfied with the service we received from Atty Palma. Not only did he succeed on our difficult case, he explained everything clearly and took time with us whenever we had questions. He followed up on everything until we had received all monies owed to my son. I highly recommend Palma Law Offices, PC.

Advertising: In accordance with rules established by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. This web site must be labeled "advertising." It is designed to provide general information for clients and friends of the firm and should not be construed as legal advice, or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.